On 26 May 2026, the Milan Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued three final judgments in the patent infringement dispute concerning motorcycle tyres, brought by Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Jinlun Group Co., Ltd. The court found that the motorcycle tyres in question, which the two Chinese companies had displayed and promoted at European trade fairs, fully fell within the scope of protection of two of Pirelli’s European patents, thereby constituting patent infringement. The court ordered the companies to bear the liability for injunctions across all UPC member states, public notification of the judgment, and compensation for damages.

Recently, Optics Innovation LLC filed three patent infringement lawsuits in the US Federal Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that smartphone and tablet products manufactured by Apple Inc., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and HMD Global infringe upon four camera patents related to digital imaging technology owned by the company. The plaintiff is seeking damages, litigation costs, legal fees and injunctive relief.

Recently, Chinese car manufacturer BYD successfully persuaded the Unified Patent Court (UPC) to exempt its UK subsidiary from a battery technology patent infringement case, with the court ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the company’s relevant conduct. Previously, the claimant, BMS Innovations LLC, had sought to include BYD UK in the infringement proceedings, but the judge did not uphold this request.

Nokia and Geely have recently reached a settlement regarding their dispute over standard-essential patents (SEPs) for cellular mobile communications; however, the parties have not disclosed the specific terms of the licence. This settlement has played a significant role in resolving the global SEP litigation between the two parties, which had been ongoing for approximately one year. The hearing in the case of Nokia v Geely, originally scheduled for today (22 May 2026) at the Munich Regional Court I, has consequently been cancelled.

On 19 May 2026, the Board of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a ruling in the patent litigation between Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) and Xiaomi: it dismissed ASC’s request for a discretionary review and its application for a stay of enforcement. The order previously issued by the Munich Regional Division requiring ASC to provide security for costs remains in force.

This settlement resolves the cross-border disputes between ASUS and at least three patent holders. The Sisvel Wi-Fi multi-mode patent pool, launched in January 2026, aggregates Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 standard-essential patents from 10 technology owners, including Huawei, ZTE, Panasonic, Philips, Wilus, Mitsubishi Electric, Orange and SK Telecom. ASUS has become the seventh publicly known licensee, following HP, Huawei, Panasonic, Philips, Sony Group and ZTE.

This case centres on Indian Patent IN184753, entitled “Decoding apparatus for converting modulated signals into a sequence of M-bit information words”. Philips argued that this patent corresponds to US Patent US5696505 and European Patent EP745254B1, both of which have been recognised as essential patents within the DVD technical standard; consequently, the corresponding Indian patent should also be regarded as an SEP.

The case began two years ago. SnapRays alleged that its electrical socket covers incorporated additional features such as LED lights and USB chargers, and were granted patents by the US Patent and Trademark Office between 2018 and 2019 (patent numbers: 10,109,945; 10,373,773; 10,381,788; 10,381,789; 10,404,045). However, shortly after the products were launched, they faced market competition from products such as LumiCover and GloCover, manufactured by American Tack & Hardware, which were alleged to infringe these patents.

Recently, the 21st Civil Division of the Munich Regional Court handed down a ruling in the patent infringement case brought by HP against Ninestar (Case No. 21 O 3846/25), prohibiting the Chinese company Ninestar and its four subsidiaries from selling specific printer cartridges in Germany, and finding the Chinese parent company jointly liable for infringement due to its ‘organisational control’ over the group’s operations.

As of 31 December 2025, the UPC’s Court of First Instance had received a total of 494 patent infringement actions, 415 counterclaims for invalidity, 88 standalone invalidity actions, and 91 applications for interim measures, alongside 43 applications for the preservation of evidence, inspection and asset freezing. Klas Grabinski, President of the UPC Court of Appeal, stated in the report that the increase in case numbers reflects the market’s growing confidence in the UPC, and that a uniform and predictable case law system will form an important foundation for innovation and patent enforcement in Europe.